Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Australian Education (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013. I endorse the remarks of the shadow education minister, the previous speaker, because, as he pointed out, the government's handling of this bill has been shambolic and chaotic. Indeed, it has been farcical the whole way through. Like everything else that this government does, it has been rushed in with indecent haste, as the shadow education minister pointed out, at five minutes to midnight. Barely a few days before the 43rd Parliament finishes, we are expected to come in here and absorb, firstly, 71 pages of amendments and, now, this consequential and transitional provisions bill. We will not have time to take it all in. It has been rushed in in typical Labor fashion. We all know that our children are extremely important. Health and education are two of the most important sectors which we deliberate on, which we try to make good public policy for and which deserve far more than what we are giving them by rushing this bill through this House and then through the Senate without the due diligence that this bill requires.

We have gone from a situation where there was no detail contained in the Australian Education Bill to a situation where we now have the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth moving detailed and complex amendments to the bill that we, let alone the government members, have had no time to consider. We all know that the government members will blindly like sheep vote en masse because, if they do not, they will get ejected from their party for life. This is too important to not properly consider it. Our children are far too important to not give this bill due consideration.

The coalition have had very little opportunity—no chance—to consult with the schools in our electorates on how the new amendments might affect them. In saying that, it is important to note that many of these people are extremely concerned about what it is going to mean for them. I quote from a letter from the principal of the Mater Dei Catholic Primary School at Wagga Wagga, Danny Malone, who wrote to the Prime Minister on 4 June, because this is quite important and needs to be placed on the record:

In response to your recent email I, and the entire school community of Mater Dei Catholic Primary School Wagga Wagga, request further clarification. There are many facts and figures in your email and, indeed, being reported in the press. The National Plan for School Improvement adds additional information to be absorbed and worked through, but still does not provide any real clarification to four key areas which are of concern to Catholic schools Australia-wide. We seek your response to questions below:

1) When will the final financial outcomes for each of the next six years of the rollout—2014-2019 inclusive—for each state and territory Catholic Education Commission and each non-systemically funded Catholic school be known?

2) Would you explain your claim on Sunday 19th May that the average non-government school in New South Wales will lose $800,000 if the new funding model is not adopted?

3) What guarantees do we Catholic schools have that the full funding for the model will ever actually be found or delivered by 2019?

4) How can the government even predict funding for 2016 at this stage, given the 2015 review of indexation?

Mater Dei Catholic Primary School is part of the Wagga Wagga Catholic diocese which provides wide-ranging support to our systems of schools that, in turn, allows for the efficient use and equitable allocation of all funds and resources. The new model to fund schools individually would undermine our diocesan system which is already in place and working! Parents of Mater Dei Catholic Primary would like answers to their questions about how our school will be affected and what this new funding model will mean to staffing and resourcing for 2014 and beyond. Planning for 2014 cannot be waylaid until after the next federal election.

Sincerely,

Danny Malone, Principal

He is a good man, Mr Malone. He was a teacher or principal when my three children went through that particular school. But he, like so many other principals, is asking questions. He, like so many other principals—Catholic, independent, Christian and public school principals—has to put budgets in place. I know it is not important for those on the opposite side to put budgets in place. I know they do things very willy-nilly and with indecent haste. It is not their money they are spending—it is the taxpayers'. But the thing is, schools need to be able to budget. Schools need to be able to make sure that the money they have coming in is not going to be overtaken by the money they have to spend. Unlike the Labor government, they need to meet their budgets. Unlike the Labor government, they need to make sure that their key stakeholders—parents and, moreover, students—have a properly-run school system and a properly-run school budget so that they make ends meet. That is something that could well be a good lesson for those opposite.

Danny Malone is not alone in his questioning of the Prime Minister, the school education minister and, indeed, this government about these reforms. Last week I had New South Wales Teachers Federation representatives from Griffith, Richard Wiseman and Melina Ragusa, visit me and they were very much in favour of the Gonski review. I know that the New South Wales education minister, Adrian Piccoli, was the first to sign up. Certainly, there are things in the Australian Education Bill—in the Gonski reforms—which I agree with. I can actually see that, for the schools I represent, the initial Gonski bill as put forward by the Labor government had some things in it which would have been beneficial for the schools I represent. However, that was before Labor decided to plonk on us 71 pages of amendments. I was waiting in turn, as I am sure so many other of my colleagues were, to speak on the amendments and all of a sudden—bang! The member for Lyne, just behind me, said: 'I move that the motion be put.' So, effectively, we were gagged. He made out as if it was his idea: 'I will bring this on; let the amendments be put.' Of course, he supported this government from day one. In fact, he put this government in place, and so it was no surprise that the member for Lyne wanted the 71 pages of amendments put so that the bill could be rushed through, as indeed it was. He and the member for New England have a lot to answer for in that respect.

There are huge questions over this consequential and transitional provisions bill. Individual non-government schools do not know how the proposed funding arrangements will impact upon them financially. They are writing to the Prime Minister, as Mr Malone did. The government has still refused to hand over individual school information to the sector for the years 2014, 2015 and 2016, despite repeated requests.

We have heard from the school education minister that there will be $325 million worth of cuts over the next four years. The rivers of gold—the so-called rivers of gold—will be in the Gonski reform process from years 5 and 6 of this whole reform package, but that means that is at least two, if not three, elections away. The Prime Minister, who is having enough difficulty at the moment, cannot guarantee that Labor will be there next election, let alone the one after that or the one after that, to ensure that these so-called rivers of gold are in place for schools in years 5 and 6 of this package. We know that the government is trying to pass this bill and has put a 30 June deadline in place. We also know that the majority of states and territories have not as yet signed up to it. Mr Piccoli signed up to it because he got what he thought was a good deal, and that any subsequent deals done would have no financial impact on New South Wales—if they were, indeed, better than my state's deal, which was signed up some weeks ago. But again we hear that word 'deal'. Really, this government should not be doing deals to force wedge issues between the federal coalition and its state coalition partners; or, indeed, between the New South Wales Liberal Premier Barry O'Farrell and the National Party state education minister Adrian Piccoli and the federal coalition. But that is unfortunately the way that politics 2013, with this current Labor government, works. It is always about wedge issues and playing the politics, rather than doing what is right for the people who matter most in this, and they are the children who are going to school.

I note with much concern that meetings are being held to explain Gonski and that there are meetings with key stakeholders about this legislation. I also note with concern that these meetings are not going to be held west of the Great Divide. That is of great concern, because country kids matter too—and certainly, country kids in my electorate matter a lot to me. The key stakeholders in this situation—that is, the principals, the Catholic diocese, directors of schools, the New South Wales Teachers Federation and others who at their very heart want what is best for the students who go to their schools—need to have the whole reform package and process explained to them. But unfortunately it has been symbolic and typical of this government not to care about regional Australia—and I would not call it just an oversight.

This bill appears to represent a dramatic new intervention in the running of state government schools by the Commonwealth. State schools were always called just that, state schools. Now, through creeping federalism and everything else, this government is trying to take over the running of these schools, just as this government has tried to take over a lot of things in health. This is causing quite a bit of alarm in the community. It makes the Commonwealth government a significant operator of government schools, or state schools. Does any Australian think that the Prime Minister and the school education minister are better able to run their child's school from Canberra than principals and teachers are able to run their schools on the ground? I think not.

We heard from the shadow education minister about the four key planks of the coalition policy. The first of these planks is teacher quality—very important. The second is to have a robust, strong curriculum. The third is to have principal autonomy, what I have just referred to in saying that the principals on the ground are best placed to know their students' parents' demands, needs and expectations. The fourth strong plank of educational priorities for the coalition is parental engagement. Our kids deserve the very best—we all know that. We all know that our kids deserve this, but we need to be able to afford to give those kids the best. There is nothing that I have seen in my time in this place to show that this government is capable of managing its finances and, moreover, managing the nation's finances to ensure that the sorts of policies being put forward will be properly funded.

The government is proposing policy that is the complete opposite of increasing principal and school autonomy. It is an invasive new incursion into schooling, the exact opposite of what we need to do to lift student outcomes. I was concerned to see, in a recent round showing which schools were performing best under NAPLAN and other student outcomes, that featured in the top 50 was only one regional school, and that was a private school. That is alarming, to say the least. We need better outcomes for students—all students—and certainly for regional students who are put so far behind the eight ball when it comes to student outcomes from years kindergarten to 12. And, when regional students go to get a tertiary education—and I know the shadow minister for employment participation, child care and early childhood learning agrees with me—they are behind the eight ball when it comes to getting good vocational, TAFE and other tertiary education outcomes. This is not helped by this government not doing independent youth allowance for regional students in the Riverina, Farrer and lots of other regional electorates. This government has never shown, by any stretch of the imagination, that it is concerned in any way, shape or form with the outcomes for regional students, especially regional students trying to get a tertiary education.

This bill will not be opposed by the coalition, but we should have had more time to talk about it and to think about it. (Time expired.)

See this speech in context